Hockey wrote:
Whoa
Easy, it was meant to be a joke...a humorous compliment even.
Sorry, I didn't get that from the message. Unfortunately, online communications miss so much context its not funny.
However, its one of those things that if I had known that, it would have changed the tone, but not the fact that I responded. Accessibility to most people is a punchline. For others, its a serious impediment to equal access. Being on the cusp of both worlds, the impact justifies taking it very seriously - not joking about it.
Hockey wrote:Never see that Seinfeld episode? Geeesh...
"Not that there's anything wrong with that!"
Hockey wrote:And if you must know, I do know almost exactly who my visitors are and will be...
Sorry, I don't at all accept that. In fact, that statement in Vegas would give "Good odds" for gamblers betting against you.
Hockey wrote:it's called vertical market advertising. People in the profession to which I advertise are very likely NOT handicapped in any way, I know this by virtue of their business.
Funny story that might help. One day in New York City, on a business trip, I ended up with a serious injury to my foot. I had to use a wheelchair for an entire day - something I've never had to do. In the hospital, which you would think would be the most accessible type of building out there, I rolled out of the ER and headed to a specialist wing.
The specialist wing was on the third floor. I honestly headed for a staircase without thinking about it. Once I realized my mistake, I asked where the nearest elevator was. Turns out it was on *the other side of the building*, which took 10 minutes of wheeling to get to.
I wasn't handicapped. I wasn't the typical wheelchair user. I wasn't shut out of accesibility.
But those ten minutes taught me that arrogant statements like "I KNOW my audience is not handicapped in ANY way" is just wrong. People get injured every day. Valuable, productive members of society lose their site every day - and can keep doing their jobs, as long as we make choices (like building accessible sites) that don't prevent them from doing so.
Imagine a 20 year veteran in advertising, bringing in millions of dollars in contracts a day, losing his sight to cataracts and being told that he can't do his job any more because their customer management system isn't accessible. That won't fly in the real world, and neither does your argument.
You do NOT know that people in your market are not impacted by your choices. Thats why we have the American Disabilities Act. People do not have to speak up to tell you when you
prevent them from using your creation. You, as a professional, should not ACTIVELY develop code that does so - no matter how sure you think you are that "No one like that comes here". They do, and you don't even know it.
Hockey wrote:I seldomly create web pages, I create web applications...I'm not a huge fan of design and usually outsource that to a professional designer.
Web applications are even more important. An application by definition is enabling a user by giving them functionality. By designing one that actively excludes users, you are discriminating against them. Its black-and-white simple.
Hockey wrote:My point being that web applciations are again, not generally for mass or public audience...most apps I have developed have been used in house, with ZERO complaint about compliance from any client.
Many blacks "didn't complain" about getting on the back of the bus.
Until one did. Silence is not compliance. It is also not at all total satisfaction.
Hockey wrote:I'm not down playing the importance of compliance, believe me, listening to you, I've begun to consider it's importance, because there will come a day when it will be mandatory, but that day is quite a ways off you realize?
On the contrary, its here, and its very real for a large percentage of web pages.
Target is being sued because their site isn't accessible - for MILLIONS.
Whether it has become an issue for your specific industry is a legal issue, and I am not a lawyer. However, it is definitely not "a ways off".
Hockey wrote:The proliferation of poorly designed sites (compliance wise anyways) far out weighs the compliant web sites, so while some browsers may support compliance, it's rediculous to think IE or FF will stop working next year on anything BUT compliant web sites.
Whether two browsers will *display* a webpage has nothing to do with this discussion. Further, that ignores existing browsers that ALREADY do not work with anything but compliant web sites. Most mobile phones already do not display non-compliant code correctly. Its already here. Not future tense.
You are focusing on "Majority rules" arguments. "As long as the majority of browsers still show me what *I* need to see, its okay to ignore the rest". The courts are calling that behavior discrimination.
Further, the proliferation of poor compliance sites is (finally) getting its backlash, as seen by the Target lawsuit. I take great pride that I'm not likely to be included in that backlash.